No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAll public comments 2.18.25 PB meeting combinedFrom: To: Subject: Sent: Christianne White Town Of Ithaca Planning Support for 2/18/25 716 Elmira Road improvements 2/17/2025 12:59:37 PM **WARNING** This email comes from an outside source. Please verify the from address, any URL links, and/or attachments. Any questions please contact the IT department Dear Planning Board, I am in support of the filling and grading at George Sheldrake’s property at 716 Elmira Road. We are their neighbors to the south and recommend the Sheldrakes as excellent neighbors and caretakers of both their land …and ours! They rent our fields and are always helping us with farm related projects and making improvements to the farm. From my perspective, George Sheldrake’s willingness to help his neighbors and his knowledge, tools, and tractors are the reason our part of the Inlet Valley has been able to remain agricultural in nature, and he is a lynchpin in the caretaking of the environment for our area. Christianne McMillan White christiannemcmwhite@gmail.com 607-227-6638 From: To: Subject: Sent: Caroline Ashurst Town Of Ithaca Planning; pbstaff@cityofithaca.org; Commendation and Support for GEIS on the Proposed Sports Complex 2/17/2025 3:14:19 PM **WARNING** This email comes from an outside source. Please verify the from address, any URL links, and/or attachments. Any questions please contact the IT department Dear Members of the Town Planning Board, Thank you for your decision to consider a Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for the proposed sports complex on Game Farm Road. Evaluating the entire project comprehensively, rather than in fragmented pieces, reflects a commitment to responsible planning and ensures that the cumulative impacts of the development are fully understood and addressed. Under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), a GEIS must be accompanied by an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) if there is any possibility that the proposed action may result in a significant adverse environmental impact. As specified in SEQRA: "If the lead agency has determined that the proposed action may result in a significant adverse impact, it will require preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement." (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation). A GEIS is a necessity to ensure a comprehensive review of the project and its potential impacts; it is critical to avoid setting a problematic precedent where large-scale projects bypass full Environmental Impact Assessments through a series of piecemeal approvals of projects, especially given Cornell’s construction boom in the past decade that will likely continue to go on. Cornell now suggests that at least some of the remaining future field proposals at the Game Farm Road site will be natural grass, which is a positive development. Again, however, the lack of specificity and accountability raises significant concerns. While Cornell representatives seemed to state during the January 7 Planning Board meeting that there will now be fewer than the total of 11 synthetic turf fields on Cornell campus as envisioned in the "Long Range Vision" plan, there are no details on how many fields at the Game Farm Road site will be natural grass, nor any guarantees or accountability mechanisms to ensure this commitment is upheld. This is precisely where a GEIS becomes essential, as it would provide the transparency and enforceable framework necessary to hold Cornell accountable to its statements. I urge the board to proceed with a Positive Declaration and to prioritize the preparation of both a GEIS and an EIS to guide this critical process effectively. Thank you for your attention to this matter and for your commitment to sustainable development. Thank You, Caroline Ashurst References: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. "Step 4: Determine Significance." Accessed January 14, 2025. https://dec.ny.gov/regulatory/permits-licenses/seqr/stepping-through- seqr-process/step-4. Zero Waste Ithaca. The Case Against Artificial Turf Expansion at Cornell: A Bibliography. Accessed February 17, 2025. https://docs.google.com/document/d/19qSgRdKSPBKYdPn_8kMifFHyGr2sZxvlmdRpuWe_ZIU/edit? usp=sharing White, Gillian. "New Synthetic Turf Fieldhouse Raises Concerns From Local Environmental Activists." The Cornell Daily Sun, November 7, 2024. https://cornellsun.com/2024/11/07/new-synthetic-turf- fieldhouse-raises-concerns-from-local-environmental-activists/. With Gratitude, Caroline Grace Ashurst, L.Ac., M.Ac. www.carolineashurst.com @restorativeharmony -- The Fertility Formula Functional Fertility Coaching + Restorative Harmony Acupuncture 2022|2020|2019 Philadelphia Family LOVE Award Best Acupuncture in Philadelphia! *******©2024 Restorative Harmony Acupuncture, LLC. All rights reserved. This document is for educational and informational purposes only and solely as a self-help tool for your own use. I am not providing medical, psychological, or nutrition therapy advice. You should not use this information to diagnose or treat any health problems or illnesses without consulting your own medical practitioner. Always seek the advice of your own medical practitioner and/or mental health provider about your specific health situation. For my full Disclaimer, please go to https://www.restorativeharmony.com/legal-disclaimers From: To: Cc: Subject: Sent: Carver Hauptman Town Of Ithaca Planning pbstaff@cityofithaca.org; info@zerowasteithaca.org; Comment for the Planning Board Meeting 2/18/2025 11:00:23 AM **WARNING** This email comes from an outside source. Please verify the from address, any URL links, and/or attachments. Any questions please contact the IT department Good morning, I would appreciate it if this comment could be read at the planning board meeting tonight, thank you! Dear Town of Ithaca Planning Board members, I am writing to address a critical discrepancy in the data provided by Cornell University in their Meinig Fieldhouse Indoor Sports and Recreation Facility, Additional Materials report, dated July 9, 2024 (Page 11). The report's claim regarding the environmental impact of synthetic turf disposal lacks proper citations and significantly underestimates both the volume of synthetic turf waste and its environmental consequences. In the following response, I will outline the issues with Cornell's data, provide credible references, and highlight the broader implications of synthetic turf use and disposal for our community and environment. This is what Cornell University says in their response, on page 11 of the Meinig Fieldhouse Indoor Sports and Recreation Facility, Additional Materials, dated July 9, 2024: "These citations are articles from media or from non-governmental organization websites that discuss plastic recycling in general. Two reports note that the ultimate fate of artificial turf is disposal, as opposed to end-of-life recycling. To place concerns about recycling and/or disposal of synthetic turf in perspective, let us consider that in the United States, the amount of syntheticturf used (and ultimately disposed of) each year is 6,500 tons (1300 fields replaced and 1500 new added annually, translating to 3.4 million square yards of new turf annually, at a weight of 3.8 pounds per square yard), compared to the total amount of plastics disposed of each year, which is 44 million tons. In other words, synthetic turf accounts for about 0.015% of total plastics disposal in the United States each year, which also translates to 0.015% of the total petroleum and energy used to manufacture plastics used in the United States each year (assuming that consumption is equivalent to disposal).." The above statement contains several inaccuracies and misleading comparisons that undermine the validity of its argument. Below is a detailed analysis of its flaws: 1. Irrelevant Comparison: Cornell’s response to our concerns about the failure of plastic recycling focuses narrowly on disposal weight of synthetic turf, comparing the 6,500 tons of synthetic turf disposal to the total U.S. plastic waste stream (44 million tons annually). This framing minimizes the impact of synthetic turf by ignoring its significant long-term harms on human health and environment: microplastic pollution, toxic chemical leaching, and climate emissions through incineration and recycling process (CIEL, 2019) - especially so-called “advanced” chemical recycling (Mock et al, 2022). Synthetic turf sheds microplastics into soil and waterways during use, contributing to persistent contamination beyond what disposal metrics capture. Its materials—such as polyethylene, polypropylene, and recycled tire infill—release harmful chemicals as they degrade, threatening ecosystems and public health. Additionally, synthetic turf production and disposal generate substantial greenhouse gas emissions. By focusing solely on weight of plastic recycling, Cornell makes light of these broader environmental and health impacts. Synthetic turf not only highlights the failures of plastic recycling systems but also adds lasting environmental and public health burdens that demand more comprehensive scrutiny. Cornell's response constructs a strawman argument by misframing the issue. Instead of addressing the specific concerns raised about synthetic turf’s environmental and health impacts—such as microplastic shedding, toxic chemical leaching, and disposal challenges—they attempt to downplay the issue by comparing synthetic turf waste to the total volume of plastic waste in the U.S. This tactic distracts from the real concern: synthetic turf pollution is not just about weight but about persistent contamination, localized environmental damage, and the lack of viable end-of-life solutions. By focusing only on tonnage, Cornell sidesteps the core issue and fails to engage with the broader risks posed by synthetic turf fields. 2. Lack of Citations for Data: The paragraph provides no references or sources for the claim that synthetic turf accounts for only 6,500 tons annually or 0.015% of total U.S. plastic disposal. The figure seems to be coming from the synthetic turf industry Brock USA’s webpage which calculates the number to 0.011%. https://www.brockusa.com/sustainability-in- focus-how-the-artificial-turf-industry-is-gaining-on-green/ The statement also narrowly focuses on disposal issues inherent in synthetic turfs without acknowledging that synthetic turf fields often do not enter traditional waste management systems (landfills, incineration, or recycling). Instead, many fields are abandoned, stockpiled, or repurposed informally, leading to significant environmental impacts. (Abel 2024; Barber & Gambaborta 2024; Lundstrom 2019; NBC Bay Area 2024; PEER 2022). Please note that “reuse” of synthetic turf only delays the inevitable disposal. 3. Underestimation of Synthetic Turf Material Weight: Cornell’s claim that only 6,500 tons of synthetic turf are disposed of annually suggests that approximately only 53 fields are being disposed of nationwide each year, assuming each field weighs 121 tons on average. The figure of 121 tons per field is based on data cited in the same document submitted by Cornell, Additional Materials, on page 8, which references a study by Magnusson et al. The Margusson study assumes an average of 110 metric tons per field, equivalent to approximately 121 U.S. tons. Interestingly, the 2017 “Guidelines for Synthetic Turf Base Systems” by The Synthetic Turf Council, a trade association representing the synthetic turf industry, indicate an average artificial athletic field uses 400,000 pounds (200 tons) of infill and 40,000 pounds (20 tons) of turf carpet, totaling 440,000 pounds (220 tons) per field. (Massey & Pollard, 2023) If we use the numbers from Synthetic Turf Council, it will make it that only 30 synthetic turf fields are disposed of annually every year in the US. This disposal figure of both 30 and 53 fields by Cornell is implausibly low, especially considering synthetic turf fields have an estimated lifespan of 8–10 years and that over 1,200-1,500 new fields are installed annually, as noted by Cornell. If 1,200– 1,500 new fields are installed annually, and their lifespan is 8–10 years, this means installations from 10 years ago (2014) are now likely due for disposal. Given the significant increase in synthetic turf installations over the past 10–15 years, it is reasonable to assume that thousands of fields should now be reaching the end of their lifespan each year and should be entering solid waste streams, but they are not. The discrepancy raises questions about the accuracy of Cornell’s disposal estimate and whether it accounts for improperly managed or undocumented synthetic turf waste. 4. Impossible Disposal: There simply is no good way to dispose of plastics. Synthetic turf is composed of mixed materials, including polyethylene and polypropylene fibers, rubber infill, and backing, all of which are exceedingly difficult to recycle. Even when they are recycled, plastic recycling is contaminating process and recycling process itself contributes to microplastic pollution of our air, water and soil (Brooks, 2022; Brown, 2023; Waste 360 Zero Waste Ithaca bibliography, 2025-3). “Reuse” of synthetic turf only delays the inevitable fate of synthetic turf either entering waste streams or abandoned. I urge the Town Planning Board to recognize that the impacts of synthetic turf extend far beyond what Cornell’s misleading data suggests. Given the well-documented environmental and public health concerns associated with synthetic turf, it is critical that the town conduct a comprehensive Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) rather than evaluating each synthetic turf project in isolation. A GEIS will allow for a full assessment of cumulative impacts, ensuring that future decisions are informed by a holistic and scientifically grounded approach. Thank you for considering this request, and I strongly encourage the Planning Board to move forward with a GEIS instead of a piecemeal evaluation process. Sincerely, Carver Hauptman References: Abel, David. “Tons of Abandoned Artificial Turf Raises Questions About Recycling Promises.” The Boston Globe. July 18, 2024. https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/07/18/science/artificial-turf-not-being-recycled/. Brooks, Tanya. "New Greenpeace Report: Plastic Recycling Is a Dead-End Street - Year After Year, Plastic Recycling Declines Even as Plastic Waste Increases." Greenpeace USA. October 24, 2022. https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/new-greenpeace-report-plastic- recycling-is-a-dead-end-street-year-after-year-plastic-recycling-declines-even-as-plastic- waste-increases/. Brown, Erina, Anna MacDonald, Steve Allen, Deonie Allen. “The Potential for a Plastic Recycling Facility to Release Microplastic Pollution and Possible Filtration Remediation Effectiveness.” Journal of Hazardous Materials Advances. May 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hazadv.2023.100309 This study highlights that plastic recycling facilities can be a significant source of microplastic pollution, primarily through their wash water. The research identifies that most microplastics released are smaller than 10 µm, which are not adequately captured by conventional filtration methods. Notably, the study found that the microplastics released into the water amounted to 13% of the total plastic processed. These findings underscore the urgent need for improved filtration technologies and regulatory measures to address microplastic discharge in recycling processes. Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL). Plastic & Climate: The Hidden Costs of a Plastic Planet. May 2019. Accessed January 6, 2025. https://www.ciel.org/plasticandclimate/. FieldTurf. "Buying Guide: First Artificial Turf Field." Accessed January 5, 2025. https://fieldturf.com/en/articles/detail/buying-guide-first-artificial-turf-field/. Greenpeace USA. "Plastic Recycling Is a Dead-End Street." October 24, 2022. Accessed January 5, 2025. https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/new-greenpeace-report-plastic-recycling- is-a-dead-end-street-year-after-year-plastic-recycling-declines-even-as-plastic-waste- increases/. Health and Environment Alliance. "Artificial Turf and Safer Alternatives." Accessed January 5, 2025. https://www.healthandenvironment.org/resources/environmental-hazards/exposure- sources/artificial-turf-and-safer-alternatives. Massey, Rachel, ScD, and Lindsey Pollard, MS. "Playing on Plastic: Artificial Turf Hazards and Safer Alternatives." Collaborative on Health and the Environment, August 21, 2023. https://www.healthandenvironment.org/join-us/blog/playing-on-plastic-artificial-turf-hazards- and-safer-alternatives. The 2017 Synthetic Turf Council guideline referenced in this article is available on its website for $95 here: Möck, Alexandra, Winfried Bulach, and Johannes Betz. "Climate Impact of Pyrolysis of Waste Plastic Packaging in Comparison with Reuse and Mechanical Recycling." Öko- Institut, commissioned by Zero Waste Europe and the Rethink Plastic Alliance, September 23, 2022. Accessed January 6, 2025. https://zerowasteeurope.eu/wp- content/uploads/2022/09/zwe_2022_report_climat_impact__pyrolysis_plastic_packaging.pdf. Research commissioned by Zero Waste Europe and Rethink Plastic Alliance indicates that greenhouse gas emissions from mechanical recycling are significantly lower than those from chemical recycling by a factor of nine. The study emphasizes that to align with the Paris Agreement, mechanical recycling of plastic packaging should be prioritized over pyrolysis. Larker, Barber, and David Gambacorta. “‘Forever Fields’: How Pennsylvania Became a Dumping Ground for Discarded Artificial Turf.” The Philadelphia Inquirer. December 13, 2023. https://www.inquirer.com/news/pennsylvania/artificial-turf-pfas-rematch-pennsylvania- dumping-ground-20231213.html. Lundstrom, Marjie, Eli Wolfe, and FairWarning. "The Dangerous Pileup of Artificial Turf." The Atlantic, December 19, 2019. https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/12/artificial-turf-fields-are-piling-no- recycling-fix/603874/. NBC Bay Area. “Disposal of School’s Artificial Turf Field Highlights Growing Environmental Concerns.” YouTube video. December 31, 2024. https://youtu.be/cPYLL5Pabk0? si=AEGeM_f9RJMgDtfy. Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). Complaint of Deceptive and Unfair Advertising of Artificial Turf. Filed with Federal Trade Commission, February 28, 2022. https://peer.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/3_7_22-Filed-FTC-Complaint- 2.28.22.pdf. This 32-page complaint filed by PEER with the Federal Trade Commission alleges that artificial turf manufacturers engage in deceptive and unfair advertising practices by making false claims about the recyclability of their products. It underscores the absence of dedicated turf recycling facilities in the U.S. and raises concerns about environmental impacts, including microplastic pollution and waste mismanagement. This document provides a critical perspective on the industry's sustainability claims. Synthetic Turf Council. "Synthetic Turf Statistics." Accessed January 5, 2025. https://www.syntheticturfcouncil.org/. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Plastics: Material-Specific Data." Accessed January 5, 2025. https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-and- recycling/plastics-material-specific-data. Waste360. "Artificial Turf: A Mounting Disposal Mess: An Investigation by Nonprofit FairWarning Shows How Recycling Scrap Tires into Synthetic Turf Has Become a Mounting Problem." January 7, 2020. https://www.waste360.com/waste-recycling/artificial-turf-a- mounting-disposal-mess. Zero Waste Ithaca. The Case Against Artificial Turf at Cornell: A Zero Waste Ithaca Bibliography. Updated: February 10, 2025 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wZA9W7i- cU9rSOxzSTuGJit9pJtEM-s_4bfbmO26R-Q/edit?tab=t.0 Written comment submitted to the Ithaca Town Planning Board February 17, 2025 (for the meeting to be held 2/18/2025) Re: Cornell’s Proposal for Athletic Facilities at Game Farm Road Dear Ithaca Town Planning Board members: Following my comments submitted in December and January, I urge you to (1) hold Cornell accountable to the stated terms of their original SEQR segmentation; and (2) advance the proposal for a generic environmental impact statement. I expect that other public commenters and board members themselves will address the need for a GEIS, so I focus my comment on the first point. (1) It is your responsibility to uphold the integrity of the SEQR process by ensuring that the applicant does not contradict the terms of their original SEQR segmentation request and apply inappropriate pressure on the Board. The public record reveals that Cornell’s request for a SEQR segmentation applying to the Game Farm Road and Meinig Fieldhouse projects was put forth in bad faith. Early in 2024, Cornell requested and was granted a SEQR segmentation on their assertion that the two projects are “functionally independent,” “aren’t even necessarily dependent on each other” (8:06), “are on different timelines” (~10:30), and that “The City Planning Board’s review and anticipated approval of the Fieldhouse project does not commit the Town of Ithaca Planning Board to approve the construction of the field hockey field (slid)” (2024-05-21 Town PB Meeting).1 These claims were promptly contradicted when the applicant returned to the Town Planning Board later in 2024 requesting approval of their Game Farm Road project. At the November and December 2024 Board meetings, Cornell argued that their proposed Game Farm Road field (a) must be artificial turf due to putative field hockey regulations; and (b) must be completed before the Fall 2025 field hockey season.2 Both points are only relevant because the Meinig Fieldhouse destroyed the existing women’s field hockey pitch on central campus. Thus, the Game Farm Road Project can only be considered the second phase of this action, with a product specification and timeline that are highly dependent on the Meinig Fieldhouse Project.2 Cornell Athletic Director Nicki Moore’s January statement acknowledges this contradiction in a public apology to the Cornell Athletics community. She states that the two projects are “interconnected,” that “I should have listened to my project team colleagues when they warned me of growing timeline risks,” and that the Meinig Fieldhouse’s destruction of the existing field hockey pitch dictates product specifications at Game Farm Road (“the sport played at the level…requires a flat, synthetic, non-in-filled, watered surface.”).2 I am not aware of a similar apology from Cornell Athletic Director Moore to the Ithaca Planning Boards who were misinformed about the real relationship between these two “interconnected” projects with “growing timeline risks” and highly dependent product specifications. Action Request: If the Town Planning Board’s review continues on the pretense of SEQR segmentation,3 then we ask the Board to preserve the integrity of the SEQR process by upholding that: (1) It is inappropriate for the applicant to raise concerns specific to field hockey turf requirements or season start dates, because these contradict the terms of their SEQR segmentation request; and (b)It is inappropriate for the Board members to consider these concerns. The degree to which Cornell now pressures the Board to greenlight yet another plastic petrochemical fake grass field on their (Cornell’s) internal timeline is the same degree to which they violate their testimony that the two projects are functionally independent. It is the applicant’s responsibility to plan multiple phases of an action in a fully transparent manner so as to not hold the Planning Board hostage to a bad-faith timeline of allegedly “independent” projects. NY State Law states that inappropriate SEQR segmentation “may result in legal action.”3 Please uphold the integrity of environmental review by (1) protecting a decision process that ensures the original terms of the SEQR segmentation request are upheld; and (2) requiring a generic environmental impact statement for the entire athletic complex at Game Farm Road.4 Let us recall that it is also in the athletes’ own interests to conduct an adequate environmental review. As one public advocate noted following publication of a study finding higher levels of PFAS on athletes’ bodies after playing on plastic grass: “The last thing we should be doing is putting down acres of a plastic fossil fuel product … with chemicals that are going to get all over athletes’ skin, and into soil and water…It just boggles my mind that people are still considering using this stuff.” Boggled, bethany ojalehto mays, PhD Cornell on Fire ENDNOTES 1. The Planning Board engaged in a long discussion about this segmentation request, noting that the permissible grounds for SEQR segmentation include if the future phase is speculative or may not even occur (~21:00). Even at the time of segmentation, it was noted that some dimensions of this segmentation were unusual. During the May 21 Board meeting, when asked if they have an idea of when they would apply for the Game Farm Road field, the applicant answered: “We’re targeting handing in an application for Game Farm Road at the end of June of this year (2024).” Town Planning Board staff member Chris Balestra noted that it’s “a little bit concerning that the segmentation question is being asked now” because typically SEQR segmentation requests apply to other projects that would occur in the “way distant future,” but “in this case, it’s almost simultaneous” (~16:15). In response to Board member questions, the applicant later asserted, “They are not functionally dependent on another: one does not have to happen in order for the other one to happen: there's no relationship there…there’s another project on the way that is mildly related to this.” (~23:00). This is inaccurate. Across multiple meetings, Susan Brock also noted that the environmental review must consider the environmental impacts of the entire project, regardless of whether part of the project is located within the Town or City of Ithaca (see Attorney Brock at 59:00 during the 2024-03-19 Planning Board Meeting). It is only appropriate to consider the impacts of all the artificial turf fields being proposed at Cornell through their athletics master plan. Speaking to a Board member’s question about the implications of SEQR segmentation for the applicant, Ms Michaels responded:“If the City says it’s not permissible, then they will be the lead agency for both projects and the schedule for the project gets further delayed, which starts to impact the timeline for athletics and the construction/completion for when a field can be ready…so that has implications for the athletic community” (~50:00). This was the perfect opportunity to spell out the real relationship. 2. In November 2024, Cornell informed the Town Planning Board that the women’s field hockey team had played “their last game” at the central campus pitch and now must rush the current proposal in time to construct the new field in time for the women’s field hockey season. They announced the same in an Athletics press release. Cornell’s Athletics Coverage on October 25, 2024 spells out the joint nature of the two projects: “The Big Red celebrated on the field, taking pictures and enjoying its 85th and final victory on Dodson Field before its move to Game Farm Road complex next season.” In January 2025, Cornell Athletic Director Moore made a public statement explaining that, “the sport played at the level of this [field hockey] team (in 2023, they reached a #16 national ranking) requires a flat, synthetic, non-in-filled, watered surface. The closest existing field of this kind is in Syracuse.” Until recently, the closest field of this kind was conveniently located on Cornell’s central campus at the Meinig Fieldhouse site. Moore publicly advocated for the Meinig Fieldhouse Project without ever mentioning the direct repercussions it would have for the Game Farm Road project specifications and timeline. Cornell Athletic Director Moore’s statement confirms that the timelines of the two projects were directly related, not “different” as the applicant originally claimed in their SEQR segmentation request: “I should have shared developments with the field hockey community along the way, and I should have listened to my project team colleagues when they warned me of growing timeline risks…However, when the timelines got tight, and headwinds appeared, I miscalculated the risks of ending up in this moment.” 3. These two projects are clearly different phases of the same action and should be considered as such for purposes of environmental review, according to NY State Law: “If an action consists of multiple phases, sets of activities, or if separate agencies are involved, SEQR requires agencies jointly consider these cumulative impacts during their review. Segmentation of an action into smaller components for an individual review contradicts the intent of the law and may result in legal action.” This interpretation is supported by Attorney Brock’s observations during the initial SEQR segmentation discussion in May 2024. She noted that the timing of the two projects suggest a single SEQR review because their timelines “are dovetailing so closely,” and that Cornell’s “overall plan” makes these projects dependent because “by putting certain facilities on Central Campus, you are displacing other facilities elsewhere…” [~38:00]). Likewise, Planning Board staff Chris Balestra noted it’s “a little bit concerning that the segmentation question is being asked now” because typically SEQR segmentation requests apply to other projects that would occur in the “way distant future,” but “in this case, it’s almost simultaneous” (~16:15, May 2024 PB meeting). The ideal outcome would result in the Meinig Fieldhouse Project and the Game Farm Road athletics complex to be treated as different phases of the same action, with a single environmental review considering the full scope of cumulative environmental impact for all phases of Cornell’s overall plan. Unfortunately, that may no longer be possible given the City Planning Board’s disputed approval of both the SEQR segmentation and the Meinig Fieldhouse Project. 4. As both Town and City of Ithaca Planning Board members stressed in earlier deliberations, the Boards have received historic volumes of credible, evidence-based concerns from community members, including experts, scientists, and faculty members (and here I cite only a small selection of comments). It is a disservice to the community’s and scientists’ legitimate concerns to rush this project through approvals without an EIS. Long Range Vision Cornell University (Red marks added to show the five additional field in the Long Range Vision Plan). · · · plasticpollutioncoalition @ Cornell University Long Range Vision (Red marks added to show the five additional field in the Long Range Vision Plan). · · · *TODD HAYNES film MARK ANNE TIM BILL VICTOR BILLRUFFALOHATHAWAYROBBINSCAMPGARBERPULLMANDARKWATERS ONE OF THE DEADLIEST COVER-UPS IN AMERICAN HISTORY Democracy Dies in Darkness Climate In a rst, scientists nd microplastics are building up deep in our brains A new study shows that microplastics have crossed the blood-brain barrier — and that their numbers are rising. 6 min 124 By Shannon Osaka A new study shows that microplastics are making their way into human brains — with potentially dangerous effects on people’s health and mental acuity. A paper published Monday in Nature Medicine found that the tiny fragments of plastic are passing the blood-brain barrier and into human brains, and the amount of microplastics in the brain appears to be increasing over time. There were 50 percent more fragments in brains analyzed in 2024 than in 2016. The scientists also examined the brains of 12 deceased patients diagnosed with dementia, and found that they had three to five times more microplastics than normal brains. “Every time we scratch the surface, it uncovers a whole host of, ‘Oh, is this worse than we thought?’” one of the paper’s lead authors, University of New Mexico toxicology professor Matthew Campen, said in an interview about an earlier version of the paper. Microplastics are tiny pieces of plastic — less than 5 millimeters in size, or smaller than a pencil eraser — that are either manufactured or slough off of plastic objects. Nanoplastics are even smaller, and can be a fraction of the width of a human hair. In recent years, scientists have realized that many plastic items (plastic bags, water bottles, tires, polyester or synthetic clothing) can shed small fragments or fibers that make their way into air, food and water. Many of those particles are burrowing deep into the human body. Microplastics have been identified in the liver, placenta, blood, testicles, even certain arteries that lead to the heart. Today at 11:00 a.m. EST For the new study, scientists analyzed 52 brain specimens, 28 that were autopsied in 2016 and 24 that were autopsied in 2024. They found microplastics in every sample, but there were significantly higher numbers of microplastics in those from 2024. Researchers then obtained additional brain samples going back to 1997 and found that they followed the same trend: more recent samples had much higher numbers of microplastics. They found no correlation with how old the person was when they died. Campen says that, with just a single study, there is reason to be cautious when interpreting the results. But, he added, the amount of plastics produced globally doubles every 10 to 15 years, which suggests that humans’ level of exposure has skyrocketed. “To see it go up 50 percent in eight years in human organs … I think that’s perfectly in line with what we’re seeing in the environment.” The researchers estimated that the average brain studied had around 7 grams of microplastics in it, or a little more than the weight of a plastic spoon. But they cautioned that could be an overestimate, as some other particles in the brain can resemble microplastics. Jaime Ross, a professor of neuroscience at the University of Rhode Island who has studied microplastics’ effect on mouse brains, praised the new research and said the increased “plastic burden” of microplastics in the body was concerning because it could exacerbate inflammation. Phoebe Stapleton, a professor of pharmacology and toxicology at the University of Rutgers who was not involved in the study, said in an email that scientists have long wondered whether microplastics could pass the blood-brain barrier — the thick membrane that protects the brain from toxins and viruses. While it’s not the first time researchers have found microplastics in the brain, the new study shows that the pieces of plastic are reaching deeper into the frontal cortex. Last year, a group of researchers found microplastics in the olfactory bulb, or the part of the brain that processes smells. The particles were present in 8 of the 15 brains studied. “This paper provides clear evidence that micro and nanoplastics are indeed in the human brain,” she said. The paper also showed that the brain appears to be more susceptible to microplastics than other organs — brain samples had 7 to 30 times more microplastics in them than similar tests of the liver and kidneys. The scientists also used an electron microscope to identify the shards of plastic in the tissue itself. They found small shards or flakes, in a shape that Stapleton described as “unexpected.” Most studies of microplastics’ effect on cells and organs examine spherical-shaped particles — different shapes could mean different health effects. Other scientists have used mice to study how microplastics in the brain could affect health, and found troubling signs. In one study from Ross and other University of Rhode Island researchers, mice were given water laced with tiny polystyrene particles, the same type of plastic that is used in plastic foam and yogurt containers. After just three weeks of exposure, the mice demonstrated cognitive changes — including changes in the brain consistent with early markers of Alzheimer’s. (Humans are getting microplastics through water as well — the tiny particles have been found in bottled water and in tap water.) Researchers caution that it’s still far too early to connect microplastics to specific cognitive problems, given the ways in which dementia alters the body. Patients with dementia have weaker blood-brain barriers, they warn, and have a harder time clearing toxins from the brain. In human brains, therefore, the high numbers of microplastics could be an effect of dementia or Alzheimer’s, rather than the cause. Richard Thompson, a professor of marine biology at the University of Plymouth and the first scientist to use the word “microplastics,” said that linking the tiny particles to health effects is “far more challenging” than identifying them in the first place. But Thompson, who was not involved in the current research, added that studies like this start to paint a picture of associations between the particles and health risks. Kimberly Wise White, vice president of regulatory and scientific affairs at the American Chemistry Council, a plastics industry group, said in an email that plastic makers are working to help reduce the creation of microplastics. “The global plastics industry supports advancing scientific understanding of microplastics,” she added. Still, researchers warn that they are still just scratching the surface of what possible health risks microplastics could pose. Last year, a study found that patients with microplastics in a key artery were more likely to experience stroke, heart attack or death. But more research is needed to identify the risks — and part of the issue is the sheer ubiquity of these particles. “There are no control groups,” Campen said. “Everyone is exposed.” From: To: Cc: Subject: Sent: Claire Nickell Town Of Ithaca Planning pbstaff@cityofithaca.org Commendation and Support for GEIS on the Proposed Sports Complex 2/9/2025 4:34:52 PM **WARNING** This email comes from an outside source. Please verify the from address, any URL links, and/or attachments. Any questions please contact the IT department To the Members of the Town Planning Board, I want to express my support for further review, in the form of a Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS), for the proposed sports complex on Game Farm Road. It seems much more appropriate to do a review of the entire project, rather than piecemeal, in order to best understand all potential environmental and health impacts. From Zero Waste Ithaca: "Under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), a GEIS must be accompanied by an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) if there is any possibility that the proposed action may result in a significant adverse environmental impact. As specified in SEQRA: "If the lead agency has determined that the proposed action may result in a significant adverse impact, it will require preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement." (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation). The threshold for requiring an EIS is intentionally low; it is sufficient to demonstrate the potential for significant impacts. Our continually updated and submitted 100-page bibliography, containing peer- reviewed studies and reports from reputable non-profits and independent scientists, provides robust evidence that the proposed sports complex may have significant environmental consequences." As a concerned Town of Ithaca resident, I ask you to please make the positive declaration for the GEIS so we can ensure these new projects will be best for Cornel students, faculty and staff, as well as Ithaca City and Town residents, and all the wildlife, too! Thank you for your time! Claire Nickell To the Members of the Town Planning Board, I want to express my support for further review, in the form of a Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS), for the proposed sports complex on Game Farm Road. It seems much more appropriate to do a review of the entire project, rather than piecemeal, in order to best understand all potential environmental and health impacts. From Zero Waste Ithaca: "Under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), a GEIS must be accompanied by an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) if there is any possibility that the proposed action may result in a significant adverse environmental impact. As specified in SEQRA: "If the lead agency has determined that the proposed action may result in a significant adverse impact, it will require preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement." (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation). The threshold for requiring an EIS is intentionally low; it is sufficient to demonstrate the potential for significant impacts. Our continually updated and submitted 100-page bibliography, containing peer-reviewed studies and reports from reputable non-profits and independent scientists, provides robust evidence that the proposed sports complex may have significant environmental consequences." As a concerned Town of Ithaca resident, I ask you to please make the positive declaration for the GEIS so we can ensure these new projects will be best for Cornel students, faculty and staff, as well as Ithaca City and Town residents, and all the wildlife, too! Thank you for your time! Claire Nickell Dear Town Planning Board Members, As research continues to reveal the dangers of synthetic turf, one issue that cannot be ignored is the heightened risk of MRSA infections. Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is a dangerous, antibiotic-resistant bacteria that can cause severe skin infections, bloodstream infections, pneumonia, and even life-threatening sepsis. MRSA spreads easily through cuts, scrapes, and skin-to-skin contact, making athletes—especially those playing on synthetic fields— highly vulnerable. Studies show that MRSA can persist on synthetic turf infill for up to 96 hours, with organic infills like cork and sand—the same “plant-based” options Cornell plans to use—allowing the longest bacterial survival. In contrast, natural grass poses little risk due to its microbial diversity, which naturally suppresses pathogens. Athletes who play on synthetic fields face a higher likelihood of turf burns and abrasions, creating ideal entry points for MRSA. Once contracted, MRSA infections can become difficult to treat because they resist common antibiotics. In severe cases, MRSA can lead to hospitalization, surgery to remove infected tissue, or even death. Why would we knowingly expose athletes to an avoidable health hazard when natural grass provides a safer alternative? The evidence is clear: synthetic turf is a breeding ground for MRSA, while natural grass is not. Institutions promoting plastic fields und er the guise of sustainability are ignoring public health risks. It’s time to prioritize safe, natural surfaces over artificial ones that endanger athletes and communities. Lastly but not the least, I also would like to thank the Town Planning Board for considering GEIS instead of the piecemeal evaluation of each synthetic turf project on campus. Sincerely, Claire Nickell Town of Ithaca resident From: To: Subject: Sent: Caroline Ashurst Town Of Ithaca Planning; Chris Balestra; CJ Randall; Re-Vote? 2/17/2025 2:29:54 PM **WARNING** This email comes from an outside source. Please verify the from address, any URL links, and/or attachments. Any questions please contact the IT department Dear Planning Board Members, It has come to my attention that the meeting was cancelled where there was supposed to be a re-vote happening. There is no agenda item for tomorrow about this. What's going on? Is a re-vote happening? Why was no announcement made? Thank you With Gratitude, Caroline Grace Ashurst, L.Ac., M.Ac. www.carolineashurst.com @restorativeharmony -- The Fertility Formula Functional Fertility Coaching + Restorative Harmony Acupuncture 2022|2020|2019 Philadelphia Family LOVE Award Best Acupuncture in Philadelphia! *******©2024 Restorative Harmony Acupuncture, LLC. All rights reserved. This document is for educational and informational purposes only and solely as a self-help tool for your own use. I am not providing medical, psychological, or nutrition therapy advice. You should not use this information to diagnose or treat any health problems or illnesses without consulting your own medical practitioner. Always seek the advice of your own medical practitioner and/or mental health provider about your specific health situation. For my full Disclaimer, please go to https://www.restorativeharmony.com/legal- disclaimers From: To: Cc: Subject: Sent: Yayoi Koizumi Town Of Ithaca Planning pbstaff@cityofithaca.org Re: Public comment for Cornell's Synthetic Turf Expansion 2/18/2025 12:08:41 PM Please note that the pdf "Susan Allen" is a speech made by Professor Susan Allen at Ithaca College, a specialist in microplastic pollution, during the rally opposing synthetic turf expansion at Cornell University on September 3, 2024. We have her permission to share the speech with the planning boards. Yayoi On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 12:04 PM Yayoi Koizumi <yayoi@zerowasteithaca.org> wrote: Please find attached five documents for Cornell's Game Farm Road synthetic turf projects. Thank you, Yayoi Koizumi Zero Waste Ithaca | BYO - US Reduces Founder | Co-Founder zerowasteithaca.org usreduces.org Our work is fiscally sponsored by NOPI - Nonprofit Incubator, a program of NOPI INC, a Massachusetts nonprofit corporation and 501(c)(3) organization, EIN 81-5089505. Donations are tax-deductible where allowed by law. Learn more at https://thenopi.org. From: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Sent: Yayoi Koizumi Town Of Ithaca Planning pbstaff@cityofithaca.org Public comment for Cornell's Synthetic Turf Expansion On CY Jim Town PB submission Yayoi 2 18 25.pdf;Why Aren’t We Losing Our Minds Over the Plastic in Our Brains_ _ Scientific American.pdf;Murray McBride Public Comment.pdf;Susan Allen comments on synturf .pdf;Bennet, Ph.D. JD's 2024 Letter for Westport CT.pdf; 2/18/2025 12:12:59 PM **WARNING** This email comes from an outside source. Please verify the from address, any URL links, and/or attachments. Any questions please contact the IT department Please find attached five documents for Cornell's Game Farm Road synthetic turf projects. Thank you, Yayoi Koizumi Zero Waste Ithaca | BYO - US Reduces Founder | Co-Founder zerowasteithaca.org usreduces.org Our work is fiscally sponsored by NOPI - Nonprofit Incubator, a program of NOPI INC, a Massachusetts nonprofit corporation and 501(c)(3) organization, EIN 81-5089505. Donations are tax-deductible where allowed by law. Learn more at https://thenopi.org. From: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Sent: Zero Waste Ithaca Town Of Ithaca Planning pbstaff@cityofithaca.org Comment submission in opposition to Cornell's synthetic turf expansion plan Press Release PELC lawsuit Cornell Tower Road Synturf Project .pdf 2/18/2025 12:22:14 PM **WARNING** This email comes from an outside source. Please verify the from address, any URL links, and/or attachments. Any questions please contact the IT department We are submitting this press release from last week as a part of our public comment on Cornell Universitys' synthetic turf expansion plan. Thank you, Yayoi Koizumi Our work is fiscally sponsored by NOPI - Nonprofit Incubator, a program of NOPI INC, a Massachusetts nonprofit corporation and 501(c)(3) organization, EIN 81-5089505. Donations are tax-deductible where allowed by law. Learn more at https://thenopi.org. FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE February 11, 2025 Grassroots Group Zero Waste Ithaca Sues City and Cornell for SEQR Violations: Plastic Turf Threatens Public Health and Worsens Microplastic Pollution ITHACA, NY – Grassroots organization Zero Waste Ithaca (ZWI) has filed a lawsuit against Cornell University and the City of Ithaca for violating the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR). The lawsuit challenges the approval of synthetic turf fields, which pose significant risks to human health and the environment, including microplastic pollution and the release of carcinogenic chemicals. “Synthetic turf is like an invasive species, spreading relentlessly and causing harm,” said a ZWI representative. “Cornell’s continued investment in these fields, despite overwhelming evidence of their harms to human health and the environment, is a betrayal of their responsibility to students, athletes, and the community.” Legal Challenge Against Cornell and the City of Ithaca The lawsuit, developed in collaboration with the Pace Environmental Litigation Clinic (PELC) at Elisabeth Haub School of Law, challenges the Ithaca Planning Board’s decision to issue a Negative Declaration for the project, arguing that it ignored substantial evidence and failed to meet SEQR’s requirements for transparency and accountability. ZWI has also publicly raised concerns about Cornell’s deep ties to fossil fuel funding and chemical recycling research with pending patent applications, which further call into question the university’s environmental commitments. This legal challenge is led by a team of dedicated law interns from PELC, who are standing up to Cornell’s powerful in-house legal team in a fight for environmental justice and public health. “Our client, Zero Waste Ithaca, has consistently raised valid concerns about the environmental risks of this project,” said Gabriela Martinez, J.D. Candidate 2025 at Pace University’s Elisabeth Haub School of Law. “It is clear that the Planning Board overlooked substantial evidence, undermining the transparency and accountability SEQR is designed to ensure.” Scientific Evidence Highlights Urgency Recent studies have identified synthetic turf as a major source of microplastic pollution. A 2024 Toronto study and a European Union report confirm that synthetic turf is the top contributor, with one study estimating that it accounts for 15 percent of microplastics in Barcelona. Notably, the Barcelona study only accounts for visible pieces of microplastics, not the invisible nanoparticles, which are even more pervasive and harmful. A groundbreaking study published in Nature Medicine on February 3, 2025, reveals that microplastics are crossing the blood-brain barrier, raising alarms about their impact on human health. Researchers found 50 percent more microplastics in brains analyzed in 2024 compared to 2016, a trend that aligns with the global increase in plastic production and use. Dementia patients showed three to five times higher levels of microplastics, underscoring the potential health risks associated with prolonged exposure. Cornell’s Dismissive Response Cornell’s legal response focuses heavily on technicalities, particularly ZWI’s standing under Article 78 of New York State law. The university’s 30-page response dedicates only three to four pages to directly addressing scientific concerns, relying on unsubstantiated literature reviews and a questionable letter from Dr. Frank Rossi, a researcher with ties to the fossil fuel industry. By prioritizing procedural arguments over substantive science, Cornell’s legal team attempts to sidestep legitimate environmental concerns, arguing that only direct users of the fields—not the broader community impacted by microplastic pollution—have legal standing. “Cornell’s refusal to engage with science is alarming,” said a ZWI representative. “Environmental harm doesn’t stop at property lines, yet the law is stuck in a framework that favors developers over impacted communities. Cornell University and the City of Ithaca must recognize the broader consequences of microplastic pollution before it’s too late.” A Call for Accountability ZWI urges Cornell University and the City of Ithaca to consider the global environmental justice impacts of fossil fuel-derived plastic turf, from extraction, production to disposal. “Allowing a reputable Ivy League university to endorse synthetic turf over natural grass sets a dangerous precedent,” said a ZWI spokesperson. “Cornell’s decision will have ripple effects across municipal parks, public schools, and other universities, normalizing the replacement of real grass fields with plastic. Athletic culture must adapt—traditionally outdoor sports should not be forced into year-round play on fossil fuel-derived plastic fields at the expense of public health and the environment.” Media Contact Zero Waste Ithaca | info@zerowasteithaca.org #EnvironmentalJustice #Microplastics #StopPlasticPollution #ProtectOurCommunity Sources: European Union report on synthetic turf as a primary microplastic source (2020): https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/a513b793-dd84-d83a-9c06-e7a11580f366 (Page 63) Toronto study on synthetic turf as a primary microplastic source (2024): https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.3c04348 Nature Medicine study on microplastics crossing the blood-brain barrier (2025): https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-024-03453-1 and related coverage in The Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2025/02/03/microplastics-human-brain-in crease/ De Haan study on synthetic turf microplastics in Barcelona (2022): https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2023.122094 A public comment highlighting Frank Rossi’s ties to fossil fuel-backed initiatives and industry interests: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/81pcip70qlnbl8xdc34hv/1-2-2025-Public-Comment-re-Sasaki-Co nnection-Frank-Rossi.pdf?rlkey=2s5lgmzvyks6sx8q8bcb9xjam&st=ikxaszq8&dl=0 A peer-reviewed study on the environmental justice impact of plastic lifecycle (2024): https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2024.106756 Draft capital plan for Cass Park in Ithaca, NY including synthetic turf fields (2022): https://www.cityofithaca.org/DocumentCenter/View/14726/DRAFT-1307008001_Cass-Park-Capi tal-Plan-August-2022_Optimized-ID-2692262?bidId= The Case Against Artificial Turf at Cornell: A Zero Waste Ithaca Bibliography – A 100+ page collection of independent science, peer-reviewed studies, local and national media coverage, and reports from reputable environmental organizations, including documentation of Cornell’s ties to fossil fuel funding: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wZA9W7i-cU9rSOxzSTuGJit9pJtEM-s_4bfbmO26R-Q/edi t?usp=sharing 1 November 22, 2024 RE: Downsides of Artificial Turf Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) is extremely concerned about the proliferation of artificial turf installations around the country. We are providing comments on the adverse impacts of artificial turf so you can make an informed decision, particularly in regard to per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and several misstatements of facts /errata that are commonly presented by landscape architects and consultants at various municipal meetings. Our specific comments are set forth below. What are PFAS? PFAS are a large family of chemicals that number between 6,504 1 and 12,0392 human-made chemicals that provide heat, stain, and water resistance. Yet, due to the strong carbon-fluorine bonds that occur in these molecules, PFAS do not easily break down in the environment and are called “forever chemicals.” Well-studied PFAS are toxic to humans in concentrations as small as parts per quadrillion (ppq).3 While the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not have a consistent definition of PFAS, most states define PFAS as any chemical with at least one fully fluorinated carbon. Regardless of which definition is used, the adverse health impacts of PFAS are undeniable. Specifically, PFAS are associated with cancer and are linked to growth, learning, and behavioral problems in infants and children; fertility and pregnancy problems, including pre-eclampsia; interference with natural human hormones; increased cholesterol; and immune system problems.4 Epidemiological studies have found decreased antibody response to vaccines,5 and 1 https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-10/pfas-natl-test-strategy.pdf 2 ENVTL. PROTECTION AGENCY, PFAS Master List of PFAS Substances, https://comptox.epa.gov/dashboard/chemical_lists/pfasmaster 3 CAL. OFFICE OF ENVTL. HEALTH HAZARD ASSESSMENT, Announcement of Availability of a Draft Technical Support Document and Public Workshop for Proposed Public Health Goals for Perfluorooctanoic Acid and Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid in Drinking Water, (July 22, 2021) https://oehha.ca.gov/water/crnr/announcement-availability-draft-technical-support-document-and-public-workshop- proposed. 4 U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Toxicological Profile for Perfluoroalkyls, (May 2021), https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp200.pdf 5 Sunderland, E. M. et. al., A Review of the Pathways of Human Exposure to Poly - and Perfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) and Present Understanding of Health Effects , 29 JOURNAL 2 associations between blood serum PFAS levels and both immune system hypersensitivity and autoimmune disorders like asthma and ulcerative colitis.6 The negative immune system effects of PFAS are extremely concerning given the ongoing COVID -19 pandemic. Recently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released a “Statement on Potential Intersection between PFAS Exposure and COVID-19,” which recognized the “evidence from human and animal studies that PFAS exposure may reduce antibody responses to vaccines . . . and may reduce infectious disease resistance.”7 Most recently, PFAS exposure has been found to be associated with mortality from cardiovascular disease,8 and with chemotherapy resistance.9 Numerous studies have found toxicity in legacy PFAS, such as PFOS and PFOA. Yet, as scientists study newer replacement PFAS, they are finding similar adverse toxicological outcomes in the new PFAS they test.10 A compilation of PFAS toxicity studies shows that virtually every PFAS examined is correlated with adverse health outcomes.11 Finally, it is worth noting that a peer-reviewed article from 2023 concludes that “there are cancer risks probability occurs as a result of chemical exposure from artificial turf.”12 It is also important to note that several PFAS are subject to California’s Prop 65. One of the PFAS on California’s Prop 65 list is PFOA,13 which is found in roughly three-quarters of artificial turf.14 Routes of exposure for PFAS include ingestion, inhalation, and dermal absorption. While ingestion of PFAS is the most common route of exposure, scientists are finding that inhalation and dermal absorption are important routes of exposure. The federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) states that people working with PFAS “may be exposed to PFAS by inhaling them, getting them on their skin, and swallowing them.”15 Moreover, recent work shows that firefighters can be exposed to PFAS through “ingestion or inhalation, or direct contact with the skin and dermal absorption.”16 Recent studies have shown OF EXPOSURE SCIENCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, no. 2, (2018), https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30470793/. 6 See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Drinking Water Health Advisory for Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA), 39 (May 2016), https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016- 05/documents/pfoa_health_advisory_final_508.pdf. 7 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Statement on Potential Intersection between PFAS Exposure and COVID-19, https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/pfas/health- effects/index.html (last visited Mar. 29, 2021). 8 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12940-024-01074-2 9 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1572100024001807 10 U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, National Toxicology Program, Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS), https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/topics/pfas/index.html 11 https://pfasproject.com/pfas-toxic-database/ 12 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e14928 13 https://www.p65warnings.ca.gov/fact-sheets/pfos-perfluorooctane-sulfonate-or-perfluorooctane-sulfonic-acid 14https://curate.nd.edu/articles/thesis/Development_of_Analytical_Methods_for_Highly_Selective_and_Sensitive_A nalysis_of_Compounds_Relevant_to_Human_Health_and_the_Environment/24869502 15 https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/pfas/health- effects/exposure.html#:~:text=Workers%20may%20be%20exposed%20to,your%20body%20through%20your%20s kin. 16 https://www.sffcpf.org/wp -content/uploads/2020/06/6.23.2020-DR-PEASLEE-STUDY-ANOTHER-PATHYWAY- FOR-FIREFIGHTER-EXPOSURE-TO-PFAS-FIREFIGHTER-TEXTILES.pdf 3 that some PFAS can migrate from car seat fabric to sweat, showing a potential dermal exposure route.17 Finally, PEER conducted a preliminary study which indicates that children playing on artificial turf do pick PFAS up on their skin.18 Additional research is being conducted on this issue. There are per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in artificial turf. In 2019, scientists from PEER and The Ecology Center discovered PFAS in the blades and backing of artificial turf. Since then, artificial turf manufacturers and consultants have conceded that PFAS are added to the machines to assist in the extrusion of th e hot plastic, but PFAS are also used as “a slip agent that is intentionally added to the molten hydrocarbons to make the plastic grass blades free of defects.”19 In other words, PFAS are used in the base material itself. In fact, every sample of dozens of artificial turf samples, regardless of the manufacturer, shows PFAS20 in the grass blades, the backing, and sometimes the shock pad and the infill. Moreover, Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedures (SPLPs) show that these PFAS leach off the fields into surrounding waters; indeed, 12 ppt of just six PFAS will leach off a brand new field.21,22 Landscape architects/consultants often promise that certification from the turf manufacturer shows that PFAS are not used in the manufacturing of the artificial turf system. This is not true. The artificial turf industry claimed for years that they did not use PFAS, and we now know that they do. A bill proposing to ban artificial turf containing PFAS in California led to the Synthetic Turf Council testifying that: The bill a (sic) ban on the sale of artificial turf containing intentionally added PFAS on January 1, 2024 to certain public entities and by January 1, 2025 for all sales in California. These dates do not provide enough time for manufacturers and suppliers to develop viable alternatives for the market place…23 This testimony is a clear admission that all artificial turf contains PFAS. Certification from the industry itself claiming the products are PFAS-free will not protect a town or city from contamination. Landscape architects/consultants also often state one or more of the following: • the synthetic turf system shall be considered “PFAS free” according to REACH and/or California’s Prop 65; 17 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0269749120361650?via%3Dihub 18 https://peer.org/pfas-in-artificial-turf-coats-players-skin/ 19 https://oakbluffs.zoom.us/rec/play/XRPkH- Yd8joprhyIovKEPo3SpdVyri6t5Intk1wSyaXPB10ZXZ6U_IUjX9npl9X4DduJgE7gjIndVKMS.qSRjKd7F9cH_sF- e?continueMode=true&_x_zm_rtaid=oO_jk5lWTT-Y7W- V3an6Yw.1652118740167.3adaa7e26df2bb777484f4cc1217465c&_x_zm_rhtaid=887 20 Dr. Graham Peaslee and Kristen Mello, NEWMOA Conference, April 6, 2022 21 Id. 22 https://www.mvcommission.org/sites/default/files/docs/2021-02-26%20%28TurfAnalysisReport_FINAL%29.pdf 23 June 21, 2023 letter from Melanie Taylor, President & CEO, Synthetic Turf Council to California Senator Ben Allen; copy available upon request 4 • the turf system shall be non-detect (ND) for 30 PFAS compounds tested via EPA Method 537 Modified; or • they will provide a statement from the vendor that the turf does not contain and is not manufactured with PFAS. These statements show a lack of understanding of PFAS, its regulation, toxicity, and testing regimens. First, REACH and Prop 65 do not regulate the same PFAS chemicals that many states regulate. Second, PFAS chemistry is complicated, and precursor PFAS can have terminal end products that are regulated PFAS themselves; therefore, the best way to protect surrounding soil and water is to prohibit any PFAS in the turf materials. To protect themselves, cities and towns should require: 1) all components of the turf, including infill, should be tested using the Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure (SPLP) acid treatment before testing for targeted (not total organic fluorine) PFAS24; 2) those tests should be done by an independent laboratory with low detection limits; and 3) any amount of targeted PFAS should be prohibited. Even minute amounts of PFAS are dangerous. In April of 2024, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued its final drinking water limits for six PFAS, including PFOA and PFOS.25 The limits are 4 ppt for both PFOA and PFOS individually, but EPA also proposed health-based, non-enforceable Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs) of zero because “there is no dose below which either chemical is considered safe.”26 Now that these proposed regulations are finalized, all states will have to comply with them. Given that we are seeing these PFAS leaching off artificial turf, it is important to assess the impacts to the groundwater, surface water, and soils from the PFAS in these products. Indeed, Dr Graham Peaslee of Notre Dame University estimates that one artificial turf field will leach 12 mg of PFAS/year, which in turn will contaminate roughly 800,000 gallons of water. It appears that as a field ages and is subject to ultraviolet light, abrasion, and acidic rain, even more PFAS will leach off. Legal liability issues should be considered, as municipalities can be considered a responsible party in the contamination of drinking water wells, surface water, groundwater, and soils from artificial turf. Artificial turf does not save water. Proponents of artificial turf, particularly in drought stricken areas, often tout the water-saving properties of artificial turf. A 2017 study in New Mexico concluded that “in order to provide a cool, playable surface, irrigation amounts for artificial turf are greater than for natural warm-season turf” (emphasis added).27 This study was confirmed in 2020 when researchers found that “that the amount of water required to maintain [artificial turf] temperatures at levels comparable to irrigated [natural turf] over a 24-h period exceed the water requirements of Bermuda grass [natural turf] in the same environment.”28 In fact, a member of the Synthetic Turf Council claims that irrigation systems for artificial turf must be “over - engineered” and that “a large amount of water has to be dumped evenly across the whole field — 24 SPLP tests measure materials that leach off the field due to rainfall; it measures organic and inorganic compounds present in the artificial turf system, and reveals what will enter the soil, groundwater, or nearby surface waters. 25 https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-04/pfas-npdwr_prepubfederalregisternotice_4.8.24.pdf 26 https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/03/29/2023-05471/pfas-national-primary-drinking-water- regulation-rulemaking 27 https://scisoc.confex.com/crops/2017am/webprogram/Handout/Paper106290/Ahmed%20Kanaan.pdf 28 Kanaan, A. et al., Water Requirements for Cooling Artificial Turf, J. Irrig. Drain Eng., 2020, 146(10): 05020004 5 and quickly because players will want to play immediately. And the cooling effect only lasts about an hour, maybe less.”29 Therefore, it is important for cities and towns to consider recent scientific studies regarding the necessity of watering artificial turf to maintain cool enough temperatures to play. So-called “organic” infills are not necessarily safe from a heat or chemical perspective. We are now hearing landscape architects/consultants saying that if they use one of the “organic” infills – like BrockFILL, coconut husks, walnut shells, and the like – the temperature of the field will be 20 to 40 degrees lower than those artificial turf fields with crumb rubber infill. This is not true. While using infill other than crumb rubber can reduce the temperature of artificial turf by a few degrees, it is not a significant reduction. One recent study concluded that, “High surface temperatures have been attributed to the black crumb rubber infills, and different alternative infills were tested but with only small changes observed ”30 (emphasis added). Another study concluded that, “synthetic turf infill does not affect surface temperature as much as fibres.”31 In addition, another researcher concluded: Although it is common to blame the sunlight’s interaction with the black crumb rubber for the hot surface, the fibers also significantly contribute to a field’s temperature. Anyone who has spent time working with traditional (non-infilled) Astroturf-type surfaces can tell you that those fields also got extremely hot and they do not contain any crumb rubber…it is obvious that there is no “magic bullet” available to dramatically lower the surface temperature of synthetic turf. Reductions of five or even ten degrees offer little comfort when temperatures can still exceed 150° F.32 These “organic” infills are not organic as organic food certified by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA); while the word “organic” sounds non-toxic, it is not necessarily. Indeed, a 2021 study33 conducted for Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts, found that BrockFILL, one of the more popular organic infills, contained: • Barium levels of 112 µg/L (ppb); • Cadmium at a concentration of 0.042 mg/kg (ppm); • Selenium at concentrations of 0.656 mg/kg (ppm); • Zinc at concentrations of 85 µg/L (ppb); • Phenol at a concentration of 6.9 mg/kg (ppm) 29 https://www.parksandrecbusiness.com/articles/2016/10/part-2-watering-synthetic-turf 30 Gustin, M., et al, Modelling Surface Temperatures on 3G Artificial Turf, Presented at the 12th Conference of the International Sports Engineering Association, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, 26–29 March 2018. Published: 13 February 2018 31 Thomsa, A. W. et al., Models for predicting surface temperatures on synthetic turf playing surfaces, Procedia Engineering 72 ( 2014 ) 895 – 900 32 Serensits, T.J. Is there any way to cool synthetic turf? SportsTurf 2011, 27, 20–22. https://sturf.lib.msu.edu/article/2011jun20.pdf 33 https://www.mvcommission.org/sites/default/files/docs/2021-02-26%20%28TurfAnalysisReport_FINAL%29.pdf 6 • 2-methylphenol (o-cresol) and 3-methylphenol (m-cresol) at concentrations of 8.8 µg/L and 16 µg/L (ppb), respectively; • 2,4-dimethylphenol at a concentration of 1.8 µg/L (ppb); and • Benzyl alcohol at a concentration of 15 µg/L (ppb). Therefore, it is important to consider that these alternative infills do not significantly reduce the heat island effect, and that they may contain chemicals of concern. Artificial turf results in greenhouse gas emissions. Recent research shows that “the substitution of artificial grass for natural grass contributes to global warming.”34 Additionally: …artificial grass reaches significantly greater temperatures than those reached by natural grass under the same meteorological conditions... artificial grass creates an additional amount of energy absorbed by the atmosphere. With the number of nationwide artificial grass installations, a typical result yields an additional energy deposited into the atmosphere during moderately warm summer days of 10 to 20 gigawatts.35 More recent research conducted this year states that artificial turf “can significantly increase ground surface temperatures and consequently increase ambient air temperatures near the ground as well as its surroundings.”36 Indeed, the scientists conclude that, “[c]oncerning climate mitigation, replacing natural ground with heat-absorbent artificial turf may be counter- productive.”37 It is also important to note that EPA considers artificial turf to be an impervious surface,38 which exacerbates runoff and contamination of adjacent waterways. This is especially critical with climate change bringing frequent torrential rain (rain bombs) and other storms. The majority of existing artificial turf studies focus on the dangers of crumb rubber infill. Most studies often cited by proponents of artificial turf were conducted before PFAS was discovered in the products in 2019, and recent studies showing risk or harm are often not included. Therefore, any study on the health effects of artificial turf conducted prior to 2019 will not assess risks from PFAS. Artificial turf results in the discharge of microplastics. Both the grass blades of the plastic turf and infill migrate off the field and get into soils and waters. Hundreds of pounds of microplastics shed off these fields each year, despite industry’s claims that they do not break.39 In fact, research from Sweden indicates that microplastics coming off artificial turf fields is the second largest source of microplastics in the environment.40 Recent research shows that fibers from artificial grass accounted for 15% of plastic pieces larger than 5 millimeters in all microplastics within 1 kilometer of the shore; they found 213,200 pieces of artificial turf floating 34 Golden, L.M., Sustainability and Climate Change. Dec 2021.436-449. http://doi.org/10.1089/scc.2021.0038 35 Id. 36 Shi, Y. and C.Y. Jim, Developing a Thermal Suitability Index to assess artificial turf applications for various site- weather and user-activity scenarios, Landscape and Urban Planning, Volume 2017 (2022). 37 Id. 38 https://www3.epa.gov/region1/npdes/stormwater/ma/2016fpd/appendix-a-2016-ma-sms4-gp-mod.pdf 39 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8OLBfWmt7g&t=2s 40 https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1549783/FULLTEXT01.pdf 7 in water per square kilometer.41 PFAS and other toxic chemicals will migrate with these microplastics and contaminate nearby soil and waters. Artificial turf cannot currently be recycled. There are currently no artificial turf recycling facilities in the United States, and old fields are being unceremoniously dumped all over the country.42 Recently, landscape architects/consultants are claiming there are artificial turf recycling facilities in Pennsylvania and Texas. The facility in Pennsylvania is not operating, and in fact has been cited for environmental violations.43 The facility in Texas is an “advanced recycling” facility run by Exxon; turf will be “recycled” via pyrolysis, which means it will be burned.44 This pyrolysis results in intensive energy and water use, and spews toxic chemicals into the air. It should not be called “recycling.” Artificial turf providers should be required to specifically disclose what will happen to the tons of PFAS -laden plastic at the end of the field’s life. Artificial turf is more expensive than natural grass. When full lifecycle costs (i.e., installation, maintenance, and disposal/replacement) are considered, artificial turf is more expensive than natural grass. In 2016, the Toxics Use Reduction Institute (TURI) did a comparison of costs of artificial turf versus natural grass, based on real world examples, and concluded that, “In nearly all scenarios, the full life-cycle cost of natural turf is lower than the life-cycle cost of a synthetic turf field for an equivalent area.”45 Athletes experience more non-contact injuries on artificial turf. Contrary to industry-funded studies, independent research finds that children and athletes have higher injury rates on artificial turf. For example, a 2024 study examining the risk of concussions found “significantly greater impact deceleration on synthetic turf compared to the natural grass surfaces .”46 Scientists concluded that, “natural grass fields are a softer playing surface compared to synthetic turf fields”47 which correlates with a higher rate of lower extremity injuries and concussions. It is important to note that these scientists also concluded that: There is a misconception that one of the benefits of synthetic turf over natural grass is that synthetic turf is maintenance free. Routine maintenance practices such as raising matted-down fibers, infill restoration, and paint and debris removal, may be required even weekly depending on field usage48 (emphasis added). 41 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0269749123010965 42 https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/12/artificial-turf-fields-are-piling-no-recycling-fix/603874/ 43 https://www.phillyburbs.com/story/news/environment/2023/03/20/pa-officials-say-turf-recycler-is-violating- environmental-laws/69995371007/ 44 https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/apr/10/exxon-advanced-recycling-plastic-environment 45 https://www.turi.org/content/download/10395/173557/file/Cost%20Artificial%20Turf.%20September%202016.pdf 46 Villanueva NC, Chun IKH, Fujiwara AS, Leibovitch ER, Yamamoto BE, Yamamoto LG. Impact Deceleration Differences on Natural Grass Versus Synthetic Turf High School Football Fields . Hawaii J Health Soc Welf. 2024 Jan;83(1):4-9. PMID: 38223462; PMCID: PMC10782390. 47 Id. 48 Id. 8 Conclusion. Given the PFAS that leaches off artificial turf, the backing, and the infill, together with the migration of microplastics, the inability to recycle the fields at end of life, the contribution to climate change, and the intense water use, cities and towns should seriously consider the installation of grass fields. It appears that all artificial turf contains PFAS, including one of the most toxic (PFO A). Because we only discovered PFAS in artificial turf three years ago, there have been no studies investigating health impacts to athletes using the fields from these PFAS. This absence of evidence does not mean that it is safe for people to use the fields; it merely means it has not yet been studied. However, we do know that even minute quantities of PFAS are dangerous to human health; and we do know that the PFAS in th e fields leaches off into groundwater, soils, and drinking water. Kyla Bennett, PhD, JD Director, Science Policy Chris Balestra From: Town Of Ithaca Clerks Department <clerks@townithacany.gov> Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2024 12:01 PM To: Abby Homer; Chris Balestra Subject: FW: Cornell's artificial turf projects Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk 215 N. Tioga St. Ithaca, NY 14850 Ph (607) 273-1721 Option 1 www.townithacany.gov TOWN OF ITHACA NEW YORK From: Murray Brian McBride <mbm7@cornell.edu> Sent: Wednesday,July 3, 2024 10:03 AM To:Town Of Ithaca Clerks Department<clerks@townithacany.gov>; pbstaff@cityofithaca.org Subject: Cornell's artificial turf projects I am addressing this letter to the city and town planning boards regarding the artificial turf athletic field projects proposed for Tower Road and the East Hill Plaza area in Cornell University's "Long Range Vision" Plan. I am a recently retired Cornell professor of soil and environmental science in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences (CALS), and am very concerned with these plans to install large areas of plastic turf on the central campus and adjacent areas. Numerous issues have been raised by environmental health experts about potential dangers to the health of athletes playing on these plastic turf fields.The dangers arise from greater susceptibility to injury as well as exposure to toxic chemicals in the plastics and infill material (often crumb rubber from "recycled" tires) by dermal contact and/or inhalation and ingestion of microplastics and other fine particles. I have often observed, when watching football and baseball games, the fine black rubber particles flying up into the air as athletes' feet and bodies impact artificial turf fields. There is little doubt that athletes are ingesting and inhaling some of these microparticles, particles that may contain heavy metals as well as carcinogenic chemicals such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Mr. J. Peters, a risk assessor representing Haley and Aldrich, the consulting firm working with Cornell on the athletic field projects, claimed in the 6/25 Ithaca city planning board meeting that these toxic chemicals from crumb rubber, even when absorbed by the lungs, pose no significant risk to the athletes.This seemingly confident statement was based on risk assessment. It is important to recognize that risk assessments are models, often very complex models, and in my experience do not have a strong track record for accuracy. They are only as good as the validity of the data and assumptions entered into them. A statement on the website of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) suggests a much less confident assessment of the safety of crumb rubber i Although previous research studies have not shown health risks from playing on fields and playgrounds with tire crumb rubber, these studies were limited and did not completely consider various health concerns" This statement, which reflects uncertainty about the present knowledge of the dangers of crumb rubber to athletes' health, should cause concern. I think the most reasonable conclusion is that the health risks posed by crumb rubber to athletes playing frequently on synthetic turf fields are as yet not well known. However, it is clear that athletes playing on these fields are directly exposed to toxic chemicals imbedded in fine particulates by inhalation, ingestion and dermal contact. Other considerations related to the well-being of athletes playing on these fields include the fact that synthetic plastic fields reach much hotter surface temperatures in sunny weather than natural grass fields. This is not a trivial concern considering the summer temperatures we have been experiencing in Ithaca recently. In addition, most athletes when surveyed much prefer playing on natural grass fields for reasons related to risk of injury and comfort. From an environmental point of view, synthetic turf materials have a very unfavorable carbon footprint. Not only does the manufacture of the plastic materials of synthetic turfs require fossil fuels and the release of CO2to the atmosphere, but the only feasible means of disposal of degraded synthetic turfs at this time is to incinerate or pyrolyze them with the release of even more CO2.The estimated lifetime of a synthetic turf field before disposal is about 8-10 years. Landfilling these turfs results in leachates that may contain numerous chemicals such as plasticizers and PFAS. Contrast this with natural turfgrass fields, which are net absorbers of atmospheric CO2, can be reconditioned, and never need to be disposed of. In my college at Cornell, we have a turfgrass program with the expertise to create and maintain natural turfgrass fields, and I am perplexed as to why natural grass playing fields have not been part of Cornell's plan. Many professional sports stadia are moving away from synthetic turf toward natural grass for a number of the reasons I am presenting here. Even stadia in climates colder than Ithaca have successfully maintained natural grass playing fields. Other environmental threats to be considered are the release of microplastics from the inevitable gradual weathering and disintegration of the plastics in the artificial turf.These microplastics, in addition to the infill crumb rubber particles, can migrate offsite by wind or by runoff during intense rain events. On outdoor fields, it would not be possible to prevent birds and other small wild animals from ingesting these potentially toxic particles. Synthetic particles from artificial outdoor turf fields have also recently been shown to contribute substantially to microplastic pollution found in surface waters. In addition, crumb rubber particles have been demonstrated to release, upon leaching by water, chemicals that are toxic to various aquatic organisms, with zinc being at particularly high concentrations in leachate.The crumb rubber content of artificial turf is not low—approximately 6 pounds of this toxic material per square foot ! There are additional numerous chemicals such as plasticizers that leach out of the plastic components of artificial turf. Mr. J. Peters, the risk assessor representing Haley and Aldrich, acknowledged in the 6/25 Ithaca city planning board meeting that the synthetic turf also contains PFAS polymers, claiming that these polymers are not the lower molecular weight ('bad") PFAS that have received so much attention for their toxicity, but instead are completely inert and non-toxic. That is, Mr. Peters appears to be assuming that the more toxic forms of PFAS will never be released into the environment from the artificial turf field. However, fluoropolymers do initially contain a low level of leachable low molecular weight PFAS, which could be an immediate source for surface and groundwater contamination. In addition, the partial and slow decomposition of PFAS polymers to lower molecular weight PFAS in artificial turf by the long-term exposure to ultraviolet light may be possible. However, as far as I have been able to determine, the potential for photodegradation of fluoropolymers has not been tested under realistic field conditions. In any event, there is disagreement at this time about the potential toxicity of polymeric PFAS, with chemical industry scientists claiming they are benign (see Korzeniowski et al., 2022, Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 19, 326-354) and 2 independent scientists stating that "the evidence ... does not find a scientific rationale for concluding that fluoropolymers are of low concern for environmental and human health" (Lohmann et al., 2020, Environmental Science and Technology, 54, 12820-12828). Again, uncertainty about how these persistent chemicals behave in the environment and what effects they may have on human health should persuade us to adopt a precautionary approach and limit the use of these synthetic chemicals to the extent possible. To conclude, I believe there are many negatives associated with artificial turf playing fields compared to natural grass fields. The installation of additional synthetic turf playing fields by Cornell is therefore ill-advised given the present uncertainty regarding the extent of risk to the health of athletes and to the environment. Sincerely, Dr. Murray McBride Emeritus Professor of Soil Chemistry 3 Dear Town of Ithaca Planning Board Members, I would like to address a separate matter I noticed upon the “Meinig Fieldhouse Indoor Sports and Recreation Facility Additional Materials” dated July 9, 2024, submitted by Cornell University to both the City and Town of Ithaca Planning Boards, which is relevant to the new synthetic proposal on Game Farm Road at hand. In my assessment, interpretations of reports and scientific studies presented in the document warrant further scrutiny. We begin by addressing one salient example before examining additional cases in subsequent communications. In the paragraph in Cornell’s submission below, “Studies indicate that synthetic turf gets warmer than natural grass field surfaces. However, air temperatures above the field are only marginally warmer than natural grass fields, and they do not emit heat after the sun goes down. The letter submitted by Haley & Aldrich in the April 19, 2024 supplemental submission references a 2017 study...which shows that (1) synthetic turf fields can have higher temperatures than natural grass fields on sunny and cloud days, and that there is essentially no difference in field surface temperatures on overcast days; (2) there is a minimal difference in air temperature above synthetic and natural grass fields on sunny days; (3) synthetic turf fields and the air above the fields heat and cool more rapidly than natural grass; and (4) synthetic turf fields do not 'hold heat' after the sun goes down.” Cornell appears to be referencing the study: Jim, C.Y. “Intense Summer Heat Fluxes in Artificial Turf Harm People and Environment.” Landscape and Urban Planning 157 (2017): 561–576. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.09.012. Upon reviewing the original study (attached as pdf), we believe the interpretation presented in Cornell’s submission does not fully reflect Jim’s findings. Specifically: 1. Surface Temperatures: Jim’s study highlights that artificial turf surfaces can reach extreme temperatures on sunny days, up to 72.4°C (162.3°F), compared to 36.6°C (97.9°F) for natural grass. While the difference is smaller on overcast days, the study emphasizes the risks of extreme heat under sunny conditions, which are more relevant to typical play. 2. Air Temperatures: While air temperatures at higher elevations may show marginal differences, Jim’s study notes that near-ground air temperatures above synthetic turf are significantly elevated due to heat transfer from the surface. This localized warming can have a direct impact on athletes and is not addressed in Cornell’s summary. 3. Heating and Cooling Dynamics: Jim’s findings confirm that synthetic turf heats and cools more rapidly than natural grass. However, the rapid heating during peak sunlight hours is linked to increased heat stress risks, a context that is not emphasized in Cornell’s interpretation. 4. Nighttime Cooling: The study observes that synthetic turf cools faster after sunset, but this characteristic is largely irrelevant to the heat-related risks athletes face during the day. Cornell’s emphasis on overcast conditions and nighttime cooling may not provide a complete picture of the study’s findings. A more balanced interpretation would acknowledge the significant risks of heat exposure on sunny days highlighted in this study. This example is part of a broader set of concerns regarding the interpretation of studies in Cornell’s submissions for the Meinig Fieldhouse Project including two synthetic turf. We will address additional examples in future communications to ensure that decision-makers have a clear and accurate understanding of the available scientific evidence. Sincerely, Yayoi Koizumi OPINION CROSS CURRENTS FRIDAYS FEBRUARY 14, 2025 5 MIN READ Why Aren’t We Losing Our Minds Over the Plastic in Our Brains? New research on microplastics in brains reminds us that while scientists compile safety data, our leaders should still act BY MEGHA SATYANARAYANA EDITED BY DAN VERGANO Richard Thompson, director of the Marine Institute of Plymouth analyzes nurdles and other micro-plastics in a laboratory on February 27, 2023. Ben Stansall/AFP via Getty Images Why Aren’t We Losing Our Minds Over the Plastic in Ou... https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-arent-w... 1 of 9 2/17/25, 15:30 Our brains are full of plastic. This was the fun news I read earlier this week while picking up dinner take- out, packed in plastic containers, crammed in a plastic bag and accompanied by Styrofoam cups. Great, I thought, convenience culture is killing us. But is it? This is the problem with the slew of research �nding microscopic shards of plastic in our arteries, kidneys and livers, the �ndings that our oceans, food, soil and air are teeming with tiny bits of Tupperware. Scientists still don’t know what this plastic is doing to us. And because research takes time, while scientists are trying to answer question, we just keep inhaling, eating and drinking tiny pieces of plastic. Why? Regulatory action has never really stopped the U.S. plastics industry from cranking out more plastic, even as clean air and water advocates try to �ght the industry’s pollution problems in court and locals wage grassroots wars to slow the permitting of more plants that spew all those toxic chemicals. And now, back in o�ce, is a president beholden to fossil fuel interests (where petroleum and natural gas are plastics precursors), a leader who uses his new powers to demand the use of plastic straws, and an administration that is hell-bent on crippling EPA’s mission to keep us safe rather than empowering it. Meanwhile, we do not know what all this plastic is doing to us. And no one currently in charge seems to care. Plastic Opinion Cross Currents Why Aren’t We Losing Our Minds Over the Plastic in Ou... https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-arent-w... 2 of 9 2/17/25, 15:30 Everything that goes into our bodies gets �ltered through our livers and kidneys, so maybe it’s not a big surprise that bits of plastic �nd their way into those organs. Same with our hearts; microplastics end up in our blood and can get stuck in our clogged arteries. But our brains are designed to keep things out, through something called the blood-brain barrier. The researchers behind the brain plastics study think the tiny shards of plastic hitch a ride on fat molecules to get inside brain cells. And what’s worse is how much microplastics the researchers think might be in a whole human brain: 10 grams. Imagine 2.5 teaspoons of sugar. Now sub in plastic. Gross. They looked at preserved brains from about a decade ago and compared them to brains from last year. The fresher brains had more plastic in them than the older brains. And yes, they accounted for all the plastic needed to hold and manipulate the brains in their study, just in case those tubes and such were leaching plastic. So, year after year, surrounded by more and more plastic, our bodies are at minimum, storage tanks, and at worst, under an unrelenting attack. How is this even happening? Chemistry. Capitalism. Convenience culture. To make plastic, petroleum re�neries isolate hydrocarbons and then crack those hydrocarbons into even smaller compounds like ethylene or propylene. They then do a little chemistry to stick those smaller compounds into repeating structures called polymers. These polymers then juiced with other chemicals that give them di�erent properties, to mold them into plastics that are bendy, plastics that are hard, plastics that are resistant to heat and other things. Why Aren’t We Losing Our Minds Over the Plastic in Ou... https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-arent-w... 3 of 9 2/17/25, 15:30 Each year, millions of tons of plastic waste ends up in the ocean, with some plastics taking an estimated 1,000 years to decompose. Over time, larger pieces of plastic break down into microplastics, which can accumulate in marine life and possibly enter the human food chain. puttapon/Getty Images In the face of renewable energy and electric cars charging up all over the country, lowering demands for gas, this is how our fossil fuel industry diversi�es. And to great success; the U.S. produced 130 billion pounds of plastics in 2023. Chemists try to �nd cleaner and greener ways to make (and break down) plastic, but its manufacture is a dirty process. So, here we are, surrounded by this stu� that will never go away, slowly building up inside us. Why Aren’t We Losing Our Minds Over the Plastic in Ou... https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-arent-w... 4 of 9 2/17/25, 15:30 Thousands of plastics exist, each with its own recipe of chemicals. Since the EPA generally regulates individual chemicals, and not groups of chemicals based on what they do, going after every single component of plastics is basically impossible. Instead, under the Toxic Substances Control Act, the Biden administration started the process of regulating chemicals with known health e�ects that are also plastics precursors and additives. But this process could take years, and its fate looks dicey in the new administration. EPA’s single-chemical approach is what tobacco researchers called in a recent Scienti�c American piece a whack-a-mole strategy. A tweak here, a tweak there, and now EPA has one more plastics mole to whack. So many moles, a push to build more re�neries, and our general inability to recycle plastic, and here we are, slowly becoming Homo plasticus. Scary, yes. But dangerous? Probably. There are oodles of studies that show that microplastics cause biochemical changes in cells and animals that we also see in humans who have various illnesses. All that said, cells are not people, and animals are models for what we think is happening in people. Why Aren’t We Losing Our Minds Over the Plastic in Ou... https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-arent-w... 5 of 9 2/17/25, 15:30 But recently, a group of Italian researchers followed 257 people who had plaque in their carotid arteries. They found that 20 percent of the people in their study who had microplastic-laden plaque had had a heart attack, stroke or had died after almost three years, compared to 7.5 percent of the people who didn’t. In studies of cells, those with microplastics in them also tended to show biochemical signatures of in�ammation. And those people who had microplastics in their carotid arteries also tended to show some of those same signatures more often than the people who didn’t. So, yes, while correlation does not equal causation, these are fairly alarming signs. Yet we live in a country that believes wholeheartedly that we just keep doing what we are doing while we �gure it all out. Meanwhile people in the shadows of plastics plants in Louisiana get cancer. Fish, the meat that was supposed to save our hearts, is teeming with plastic that we know now can end up clogging our arteries. The brains of people with dementia are full of plastic. So, recycle all your plastic containers! Cancel your food delivery! Take bags to the grocery store! All wonderfully insidious ways that we shift the responsibility of environmental calamity onto individuals. Don’t �x the problem of wasteful and destructive plastics chemistry, just tell people to stop using the product. Meanwhile, entire countries are trying to stop using so much plastic. And some places in the U.S. ban certain plastics. We could be like Maine, which makes large companies that use plastic help pay to deal with the waste. The responsibility for plastic is not just the consumer’s. Why Aren’t We Losing Our Minds Over the Plastic in Ou... https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-arent-w... 6 of 9 2/17/25, 15:30 Popular Stories I see pictures all the time of beaches covered in plastic pebbles, land�lls over�owing with water bottles, and giant dumps of technology products with their sad beige plastic shells. Chemistry is a beautiful thing. When it comes to plastic, when are we going to hold the petrochemical industry accountable for this ugliness? This is an opinion and analysis article, and the views expressed by the author or authors are not necessarily those of Scienti�c American. RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS MEGHA SATYANARAYANA is chief opinion editor at Scientific American, where she writes the column Cross Currents. She is a former scientist who has worked at several news outlets, including the Detroit Free Press and STAT. She was a Knight-Wallace Fellow, a cohort member of Poynter’s Leadership Academy for Women in Digital Media and a Maynard 200 Fellow. More by Megha Satyanarayana Why Aren’t We Losing Our Minds Over the Plastic in Ou... https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-arent-w... 7 of 9 2/17/25, 15:30 Cornell’s Synthetic Turf Expansion vs. Local Bans Across the U.S.: Why Is Ithaca Ignoring the Risks? February 18, 2025 To the Town of Ithaca Planning Board Members, I am submitting this comment in opposition to the continued expansion of synthetic turf on Cornell’s campus. While municipalities across the country are banning or restricting synthetic turf due to well-documented environmental and health risks, Cornell is charging ahead with an unchecked buildout—ignoring overwhelming scientific evidence and public concern. Key Examples of Bans and Restrictions: ● Georgia (2025): Just passed this month the Safer States Act (HB 9), prohibiting the sale and distribution of artificial turf on state property due to toxic flame retardants. ● California: ○ Millbrae (2023): Banned artificial turf due to environmental and health concerns. ● Massachusetts: ○ Oak Bluffs (2024): Board of Health unanimously banned synthetic turf fields due to PFAS water contamination risks. ○ Wayland, Concord, and Sharon: Passed multi-year moratoriums prohibiting synthetic turf on town-owned properties. ● Colorado (2024): State law prohibits artificial turf on most commercial, industrial, and state properties as a water conservation measure. ● Washington, D.C. (2017-Present): Moratorium on crumb rubber artificial turf remains in effect. ● European Chemicals Agency (EU, 2023): Identified synthetic turf as a leading source of microplastic pollution, leading to a ban on crumb rubber infill. These bans and restrictions are based on independent science, peer-reviewed studies, and authoritative reports confirming the dangers of synthetic turf. PFAS contamination, microplastic pollution, athlete injuries, and long-term environmental harm have led communities to reject artificial fields. For more municipal bans, moratoriums, restrictions on synthetic turf, and links to sources, please see the list in a separate pdf submitted together with this comment. Also see Zero Waste Ithaca’s bibliography section titled “Bans, Moratoriums, and Legislative Actions,” page 105-109 (Zero Waste Ithaca, 2025). Why Is the Town of Ithaca Moving Forward with This Expansion? Despite this growing national movement, Cornell is continuing an aggressive expansion, with plans for at least four additional synthetic fields on Game Farm Road. This would bring the total number of artificial turf fields on campus to at least 14, according to a 2015 document we recently uncovered (Cornell University, 2015, Page 7), far beyond even the 12 total estimated in earlier discussions. Yet, at the January 7th Planning Board meeting, when community members raised this and other issues, they were falsely accused of lying by a Cornell University representative. The real numbers are in Cornell’s own documents. Cornell’s justification relies on reports from consulting firms like Tetra Tech—the same firm whose analysis was rejected in Oak Bluffs when the town chose to ban synthetic turf. If that analysis was not deemed sufficient to justify artificial turf in Oak Bluffs, why is it being relied upon here? Cornell’s Strategy: Avoiding Science, Attacking Standing Cornell’s legal arguments do a poor job in refuting the environmental and health risks of synthetic turf. Instead, they focus on attacking standing—arguing that the affected community has no right to challenge their synthetic turf expansion. This is not a debate over scientific merit; it is a procedural maneuver designed to avoid accountability. But environmental harm doesn’t stop at property lines. Microplastic emissions from synthetic turf don’t stay within Cornell’s fields—they contaminate our air, soil, and water. The European Chemicals Agency, and multiple peer-reviewed studies confirm that synthetic turf is a major source of microplastic pollution. (Zhu et al. 2024; De Haan et al. 2023; ECHA 2020; Bo et al. 2020; IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute 2016). Where Is the Environmental Impact Assessment? All we are asking for is an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). This is the bare minimum for a project of this scale and potential harm. Why is Cornell so resistant to conducting an EIA? Our coalition has submitted a 151-page bibliography of peer-reviewed studies, independent science, and authoritative reports—including sources from The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Guardian, and other major media outlets. These are credible, widely respected sources. Yet, Cornell continues to dismiss our evidence while submitting a mere 12 references (Cornell University, 2024, page 33-34) —three of which have direct conflicts of interest or industry funding, and two of which are reports by hired consulting firms. The Town’s Responsibility The Town of Ithaca has a duty to protect public health and the environment. While cities and states across the U.S. are banning synthetic turf, why is Ithaca allowing Cornell to expand it unchecked? The town must stop enabling this project and instead require a full, science-based assessment of its long-term impact. Sincerely, Emily Jernigan References: Bø, S. M., R. A. Bohne, B. Aas, and L. M. Hansen. “Material Flow Analysis for Norway's Artificial Turfs.” IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 588, 1.1–1.14 (2020): 042068. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/588/4/042068. This paper claims that synthetic turf is the second-largest source of microplastic emissions in Norway. By analyzing the material flow of synthetic turfs in Norway, the study reveals that a significant number of rubber granules and grass fibers are unaccounted for and may have been lost to the environment. Cornell University. Game Farm Road Athletic Complex Facilities Master Plan. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, June 2015. https://fcs.cornell.edu/sites/default/files/imce/site_contributor/Dept_University_Architect _and_Campus_Planning/documents/Campus_Planning/Game%20Farm%20Road%20Ath letic%20Complex%20Facilities%20Master%20Plan.pdf https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/259jz3pz0tmf65hvkyrcq/Game-Farm-Road-Athletic-Co mplex-Facilities-Master-Plan.pdf?rlkey=suuiaaeufm1zrzqml5cjjo0y4&st=vb9anf6c&dl= 0 This 2015 master plan outlines the vision for the Game Farm Road Athletic Complex, consolidating athletic fields and infrastructure. Notably, on page 7, the plan includes six synthetic turf projects within the proposed sports complex, indicating Cornell’s long-term plan on expanding artificial turf use on campus. Cornell University. “Meinig Fieldhouse Indoor Sports and Recreation Facility: Additional Materials.” April 19, 2024. https://www.cityofithaca.org/DocumentCenter/View/16866/Meinig-Fieldhouse-Additiona l-Materials-041924-rsz De Haan, William P., Rocío Quintana, César Vilas, Andrés Cózar, Miquel Canals, Oriol Uviedo, and Anna Sanchez-Vidal. “The Dark Side of Artificial Greening: Plastic Turfs as Widespread Pollutants of Aquatic Environments.” Environmental Pollution 334 (2023): 122094. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2023.122094. European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). “Opinion on an Annex XV Dossier Proposing Restrictions on Intentionally-Added Microplastics.” Helsinki, Finland: ECHA, 2020. https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/a513b793-dd84-d83a-9c06-e7a11580f366 (Page 63 for microplastic reference) IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute. "Tire Wear Foremost Source of Microplastics." Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, March 29, 2016. https://www.ivl.se/english/ivl/press/press-releases/2016-03-29-tire-wear-foremost-source- of-microplastics.html. Zero Waste Ithaca. The Case Against Artificial Turf Expansion at Cornell: A Bibliography. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wZA9W7i-cU9rSOxzSTuGJit9pJtEM-s_4bfbmO2 6R-Q/edit?tab=t.0 Accessed February 18, 2025. Zhu, Xia, Matthew J. Hoffman, and Chelsea M. Rochman. “A City-Wide Emissions Inventory of Plastic Pollution.” Environmental Science & Technology. February 1, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.3c04348 Municipalities with Artificial Turf Bans, Moratoriums, or Restrictions (Updated: February 18, 2025) California ● Millbrae, California City of Millbrae, California. "Prohibition of Artificial Turf." Millbrae Municipal Code, Title 8, Chapter 8.65, October 24, 2023. https://www.ci.millbrae.ca.us/276/Prohibition-of-Artificial-Turf ○ The City of Millbrae voted to ban artificial turf in October 2023. ● Los Angeles, California CBS News Los Angeles. "LA Council Committee Moves Synthetic Grass Ban Proposal Forward." June 2024. https://www.cbsnews.com/losangeles/news/la-council-committee-moves-synthetic-grass- ban-proposal-forward/ ○ In June 2024, a Los Angeles City Council committee advanced a proposal to ban synthetic grass citywide. Colorado ● State of Colorado Colorado General Assembly. SB24-005: Prohibit Landscaping Practices for Water Conservation. Approved March 15, 2024, effective August 7, 2024. https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb24-005 ○ This law prohibits the installation of nonfunctional turf, artificial turf, and invasive plants on most commercial, industrial, and state government properties, including medians, parking lots, and along roads. ○ Note: This is a statewide restriction, applying to most commercial, industrial, and state government properties. Connecticut ● Westport, Connecticut Vaughan, Sophie. “RTM Proactively Bans Crumb Rubber Artificial Turf.” CT Insider, December 13, 2018. https://www.ctinsider.com/news/article/RTM-proactively-bans-crumb-rubber-artificial-tur f-13464197.php ○ In October 2018, Westport, Connecticut's Representative Town Meeting (RTM) unanimously passed an ordinance titled "Ordinance prohibiting the application of synthetic infill material on playing fields on town property," effectively banning the use of crumb rubber infill on town-owned fields. Schwing, John. “RTM Members Red Flag Artificial Turf as Fields of Nightmares.” Westport Journal, November 27, 2024. https://westportjournal.com/government/rtm-members-red-flag-artificial-turf-as-fields-of- nightmares/ ○ In recent developments, members of the RTM have raised concerns about the health, safety, and environmental risks posed by artificial turf fields. Discussions are ongoing. District of Columbia ● Washington, D.C. District of Columbia. "§ 10–168. Moratorium on Crumb Rubber Artificial Turf." Code of the District of Columbia, enacted December 13, 2017. https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/10-168 ○ Note: This moratorium remains in effect as of January 2025. The District's Interagency Working Group on Artificial Turf and Playgrounds has recommended continuing this moratorium. https://dgs.dc.gov/page/artificial-turf-gmax-and-playgrounds-testing Georgia ● State of Georgia Georgia General Assembly. "Safer States Act." House Bill 9, enacted in February 2025. https://www.legis.ga.gov/api/legislation/document/20252026/229787 ○ Amending Chapter 15 of Title 25 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, the law prohibits the sale and distribution of covered products containing specific chemical flame retardants, including artificial turf installed on state property, effective January 1, 2026. ○ This law restricts the use of harmful flame retardants in various consumer products, including synthetic turf on state property, due to concerns over toxicity and environmental impact. Massachusetts Boston, Massachusetts The Guardian. "Boston Bans Artificial Turf over Toxic 'Forever Chemicals' Concerns." September 30, 2022. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/30/boston-bans-artificial-turf-toxic-forever- chemicals-pfas Rowley, Frankie. "Wu Blocks New Artificial Turfs in Boston Parks, Refrains from Calling It a Ban." WGBH, October 5, 2022. https://www.wgbh.org/news/local/2022-10-05/wu-blocks-new-artificial-turfs-in-boston-parks-ref rains-from-calling-it-a-ban. ○ As of January 2025, Boston has implemented a policy of self-restraint regarding artificial turf installations. In September 2022, Mayor Michelle Wu announced that the city would no longer install artificial turf containing PFAS chemicals in public parks, opting instead for natural grass surfaces wherever feasible. ● Concord, Massachusetts Town of Concord, Massachusetts. “Article 16: Citizen Petition—Five-Year Moratorium on the Installation of Synthetic Turf on Town Land.” Concord, MA: Town Meeting, 2022. https://concordma.gov/3049/Article-16---Citizen-Petition---Five-Yea ○ This moratorium was adopted at the Town Meeting in 2022 and prohibits synthetic turf installation on town-owned properties for five years, from May 1, 2022, to May 1, 2027. ○ Note: The moratorium was proposed through a citizen petition, which is a formal way for residents to request town action. In Massachusetts, a citizen petition is not automatically equivalent to an ordinance but is a method to propose actions, including bylaws or policy changes, for consideration at a town meeting. ● Oak Bluffs, Massachusetts Town of Oak Bluffs, Massachusetts, Office of the Planning Board. “Notice of Decision May 4, 2022 RE: Special Permit Athletic Track and Synthetic Turf Field, Martha’s Vineyard High School.” https://mvrhs.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/OB-Planning-Board-Special-Permit-Decis ion.pdf ○ In April 2024, the Oak Bluffs Board of Health unanimously voted to ban the installation of artificial turf playing fields within the town due to concerns over PFAS contamination. The ban applies to all artificial turf fields, regardless of size, and will remain in effect until the board decides to lift it. ● Sharon, Massachusetts Town of Sharon, Massachusetts. "Article III: Artificial Turf Field Moratorium." Sharon General Bylaws, adopted October 12, 2020. https://www.sharonma.gov/sites/g/files/vyhlif3921/f/uploads/2020_general_bylaws.pdf Town of Sharon, Massachusetts. "Article 21: Extension of Moratorium on Synthetic Fields/Artificial Turf." 2024 Annual Town Meeting Warrant, April 2, 2024. https://www.townofsharon.net/sites/g/files/vyhlif3801/f/uploads/2024_annual_town_meet ing_warrant.pdf ○ In March 2024, Sharon extended its moratorium on synthetic turf for an additional five years, keeping it in effect until 2029. ○ In October 2020, the Town of Sharon, Massachusetts, enacted a three-year moratorium on the installation of artificial turf on town-owned land, effective until October 2023. ○ In March 2024, a citizen's petition was presented to the Board of Health, seeking support to extend the existing moratorium. ○ Subsequently, during the 2024 Annual Town Meeting, Article 21 proposed extending the moratorium for an additional five years. The article outlined environmental and health concerns associated with artificial turf, including the presence of toxic chemicals and microplastics. The proposed extension aimed to continue prohibiting the installation of artificial turf on town-owned land for five more years from the effective date of the moratorium extension. As of January 2025, the moratorium has been extended until 2029. ● Wayland, Massachusetts Town of Wayland, Massachusetts. Chapter 95: Artificial or Synthetic Turf—Moratorium on Installation; Purpose. Adopted May 14, 2024. https://www.ecode360.com/38888159 ○ The town extended its moratorium on artificial turf installation for another three years in May 2024. New Jersey ● Cape May, New Jersey City of Cape May, New Jersey. Ordinance No. 531-2024: "An Ordinance Regulating the Use of Artificial Turf in the City of Cape May." Approved May 7, 2024, effective June 4, 2024. https://www.capemaycity.com/media/Ordinances/531-2024%20Ordinance%20Regulating %20Use%20Of%20Artificial%20Turf%20In%20The%20City%20Of%20Cape%20May. pdf ○ The ordinance bans the installation of artificial turf as a substitute for natural landscaping throughout the City of Cape May. The ban, effective June 4, 2024, aims to protect public health, the environment, and the city’s historic character.